Europe’s Economies after the First World War

When the Allies met in Paris to negotiate the terms for peace after the First World War, their main goal was ostentatiously to create stability in Europe, but each representative came to the table with his own specific interests in mind. This led to major issues in the Treaty of Versailles, such as its questionable economic feasibility. In his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes discusses how the preoccupation of the Allies caused them to deal with economic issues using politics and without considering the future of Europe’s economies. While the Treaty of Versailles set many future events in motion, the economic turmoil it created was the most dramatic and disastrous effect it had on the European Continent.

As Mark Mazower writes in Dark Continent, “After the Great War, Europe’s economic life was in chaos.” He goes on to describe the hunger and rapidly falling prices that ensued in Europe following the war. (Mazower 104) Keynes elaborates on the same point, stating that, “In relation to other continents Europe is not self-sufficient; in particular it cannot feed itself.” The people of the industrialized cities of Europe need to obtain supplies like food from outside their cities if they are going to survive. When war breaks out, these supply lines are broken, and because of “… the interruption of the stream of supplies, a part of this population is deprived of its means of livelihood.”(Keynes) After the war, no agreement to eliminate economic tariffs is made, as was suggested by President Wilson in his Fourteen Points, causing even more economic stress in Europe.

A large part of the economic wrongdoing in the Treaty of Versailles was directed at Germany. Not only did Germany have to accept blame for the war, it also had to pay reparations to the Allies for the damage it caused. Germany was also stripped of its colonies, leaving it little economic prospect for paying the Allies.  In response to these terms in the treaty, Count Brockdorff-Rantzau identified that the terms of the peace treaty would literally and economically starve Germany, and that, “Those who sign this Treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women and children” (Keynes).

The Treaty of Versailles possessed many economic faults, and, writing in 1920, Keynes foreshadows many of the consequences that these faults will have on Europe. The treaty doesn’t help to restore Europe’s economic vitality or create stability in Central Europe, leaving Europe liable for depression and bloodshed.

Critical Summary

Mark Mazower’s text Dark Continent gives readers a panoramic view of the conflicts that Europe faced during the turbulent inter war period. The first four chapters cover a plethora of topics including racism, religion, eugenics, and many more. Mazower’s ability to tie these issues together is a testament to his skill as a writer and its what makes this book such a fascinating read. Throughout the book Mazower seems to tie all of his points to the larger idea that Europe’s inability to adapt to the idea of democracy led to the rising radicalization of almost all of Europe, with countries on the right like Germany, and Italy, or the left like Russia, and Hungry experiencing many of the same issues.

The inter war period was a dynamic time of extreme adjustment, controversy, and volatility throughout Europe. Issues such as the fall of the imperial powers, financial crisis, and rising nationalism, were brought to the forefront during this polarized time. Mazower theorizes that the conflicts in places such as Germany, Austria, Hungry, and Russia were not unique to each one, but rather he focused on the common fundamental issues facing these countries, organizing his text by theme rather than chronology. In all these nations existed a populous that shared the ideals of the Western powers–particularly Britain, France, the United States, and Switzerland–such as democracy and liberalism. These ideals, however, applied to a continent ravaged by war and occupied largely by a working class that preferred an increase in wages, to constitutional liberties, were ambitious and utopian. Attempting to break free from these ideals, Germany, Italy, Russia and many more countries turned to radicalism and violence to achieve there goal of dominance of there own populous and also the Europe as a whole.

At one time or another there where liberal democracies set up in all of Europe’s countries. However the failure of these democracies in countries like Russia led to a rise of radicalism, “His triumph, like Mussolini’s later from the Right, was really the consequence of liberalism’s failure” (Mazower P.11). This quote by Mazower is talking about Lenin and his success in Russia, however it can be used to describe many of the European democracies who let radicals like Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler step into power gap’s left by these democracies. The Parliament’s of these countries where described by Mazower as so “Parliament seemed like a lens, magnifying rather than resolving the bitter social, national and economic tensions in society at large.” This view of Parliament although harsh was very true and, further illuminates the failure of “liberal democracy”.

Overall I highly recommend Mazower’s text to all who have a interest in this period. Although some of the information in this book are more for students of the undergraduate and beyond level, I cannot thing of a reason for any avid history buff to not have this text on their reading list. In one volume of around five hundred pages it is able to give a rather varied and compressive history of twentieth century Europe, a topic that could take volumes to write about.

A Critical Summary of Mazower’s “Dark Continent”, Chapters 1-4

In the first four chapters of his text Dark Continent, Mark Mazower not only elaborates on the events of Europe’s interwar period, going into detail about the reasons for the development of these events, he also gives his readers an objective and analytical view on the continent as a whole. As opposed to going through Europe’s interwar period country by country, Mazower structures his chapters around the main issues and developments that affected all of Europe. Mazower pushes the idea that the countries of Europe progressed simultaneously with different ideological goals, but using similar means to achieve these goals. While Mazower occasionally strays away from his main points and sites more secondary sources than primary ones, he gives a new prospective on Europe at a volatile point in its history, explaining how even those countries that seem extreme in hindsight, differed in their methodology and ideology only slightly from the rest of the continent.

The examining of Europe as an entity, and not each individual European country during the Interwar period, really adds to the ingenuity Mazower’s text. He showed the developments throughout Europe that led to such events as the rise of Nazi Germany and the Russian Revolution, and that the formation of these governments was not as sudden or surprising as is commonly thought. For example, Eugenics, invoking such tactics as sterilization, was alive in the majority of European countries, as well as The United States, at the time; the Nazis just took the next step in purifying their population by killing those that they deemed undesirable (97). As for the Bolsheviks, Lenin introduced a “New Economic Policy” in the 1920’s that allowed from some forms of capitalism, such as private business, in Russia (117).

In the back of his text, Mazower lists his sources, as well as providing the reader with charts and maps that help to clarify his relatively dense writing. Maps, for example, that show the countries of European before and after the First World War, giving the reader a better idea of what he is discussing, such as invasions and minority issues within countries. In his bibliography, Mazower sites numerous sources, ranging in date from before the First World War to the 1990’s. While this use of sources from through out the twentieth century brings the perspectives of different time periods into the text, Mazower uses more secondary sources than primary ones, which effectually distances his text from the historical evens themselves.

While Mazower’s writing can become dense and hard to follow at times, for the most part, this text is clear and accessible to undergraduate students. A basic knowledge of European history would improve a reader’s comprehension of this text because major events and facts are skimmed over, so as to focus on the details and driving forces behind these events more intently. Mazower’s method of examining Europe as a whole sheds new light on a complicated and significant period in history, showing connections and common themes between countries that have been previously overlooked.